Dismissed

Sumer Choudhary and another v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2023CRLP/3281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC sought release of two accused on bail in a fatal dacoity and robbery case involving enhancement of death. The High Court dismissed the bail application citing active conspiracy, attempt to cause death, recovery of weapons, and threat to witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC for bail was dismissed. Accused remained in custody.

Sumer Choudhary and another Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13215 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N Ot 32A1 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Sumer Choudhary and another, S/o Mangi Lal, Aged aboul 27 years, Occ. Om-Jewellery Shop at Gouraram, R/o H.No.4-9l1, Gouraram (V), Wargal (M), Siddipet District, T.S.

¶9

...PETITIONER/A.7

¶10

Smt. Guddiya @ Gudiya Jaat,, W/o Mahender Kumar @ Mahender, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Jayalaxmi Jewellery Shop business at Gajwel, Rl/o-Near Vegetable Market, Siddipet Diskict, N/o Pipaliya (V), Jatara Tehsil, Pali District, Rajasthan State.

...PETITIONER/A.8

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Petition under Section 437& 439 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner on bail in. Crime No.890 of 2022 daled 0111212022 of P.S Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda District in the interest of Justice.

¶17

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I'llE IION'Bl-lr I)r. JTJSTICE G. RADHA llA\l

¶21

( ItINIINAL I'lr1'ITION No.328l of 20.Il

¶22

otu)[]R:

¶23

['his^('r n inal Pc.tition is filed by thc petitio-r.rs accLrscd N<rs.7 ancj 8 ur dr.r' Ses11o,, 431 & 439 ol'('r.lr.( . lor !.r ar)l ot'bail in ('rirne- \o.890 tl 2022 of Chaitanypuri Police Statior. rcg stcred fbr the- ollcnccs u dt.r Sections 394,397,398,212. l20t ll) ol IpC and Scctions l:( I Xr ). I^,(2) o1'.I-hc Arms Act, 1959

¶24

l. ['he easc rl tlre prosecutron in brief was rhat /,1 u,as r.unning icuclle^{rr. Susir .s:,} in thc narne & style as^'Jai [_arn i Jcr,,cllers' at (iairr e i. I o chnr c1 ,rit:k and casy rnonev, he hatchcd a pli n to loot gold , cash lirrr busr rrt ssmen supplyillg to various jewell :rv shops and conspired u,ith lris rvife Gudiya (A8), his brother r -la.*, Sumer Choudary (A7) arrd acquirintances Md. Firoz (,46). Bhlnsi Ram (o Marrish Dervasi A3) and secured the presence of {2. ,{z and A.5 from [ {arl ana/R alasth tn rvith dcadly weapons to execute rL-,nec robbery rvitlr attcmlrt [o :rrsc dcarh. Accordingly, on 20-10'?.02,,. A]t. A4 and A 5 cartrt, trr^(,ir lll h'orn il arya nalRaj asthan and staye<l in a lodgc in (ialrvcl lor 7 <lar s rnd conducted recce, wilh suggestron i tion ,A3. On

¶25

l)Ii,lli I I ii i' (,^il\i . .':\

¶26

26-10-2022, A2, A4 & 45 threatencd a [lcro llonda^{ridet tith a} weapon and took away the [Ionda^{Activa u''ith helnrct tbr rvhicha case} was registered in Crime No. 183/2023 under^{Section 382 IPC ol PS} Gouraram. On 01.12.2022 at^{10:30 Hrs, A3 and A5 starlcd fiom} Ramayampet on white Honda^{Activabelonging to A3 and reachedpot} market around 12:30 hrs. A2 &^{A4 startedlrornRarnayampet around} l l:30 Hrs. on pulsar and^{waitednear JBS. ,{3 & A5 started watching} movements of the complainant,^{who was in} .icu'ellcry^busincssin supplying^jewetlery to different^{jewelleryshops irr thc city and} followed him. When the^{complainantrcachedMahadevJervellersat} Snehapuri Colony, Kothapet,^{Chaitanyapuriand rvas displayinghis,} jewellery items to shop owner, all of a sudden A2 and^{A4 enteredinto} the shop. While 45 closed^{the shutter from outside,43 waited nearby} his Honda Activa keeping it^{ready to move.,{2 threatenedthe} complainant, his assistant and^{shop ownerwith a pistol and askedthem} to handover the^jewellery bag.^{Whenthey resisted,A2 openedfire} with the pistol resulting^{in bulletwounds to the shopowner(LW'2) and} the assistant of the^{complainant (LW.3)and forcibly snatchedthe} jewellery bag. While A.4 and A5 opened^{the shutter and ran out' A2} and A3 escaped^{with the stolenjewellerybag on the HondaActiva of}

¶27

(ri s: ,,1 .' 'r

¶28

.\ 1. - and ' t.scap..d on thc I)Lrlsar lnotor cvcle :rll reachcd Iippal rurc.r rrnrl lcli h,' p,trlsar. nrotor crclc in t labsiguJa .rre:. Mt,anrvhile. the ,(r tlr-or e ,\ in lris XL.IV vehicle liom (iajwel antl ri:re rvaiting at a rcstarrra.lt in ,1'prrl. Ort receiVinq a call from Al, Lher ticllc-d up A2 in Xt,rV c:,r of \t,. While Al and ,A2 with stoler. jewelt,:ry bag werlt ro [)alaliu(liv. 11 6 got dorvn at Ghatkesar bus stop and pi;kerl up .A4 and .A-i rr',d hrour- rr thcnt to Jangaon by., bus. By th..n A I r,:ac-rcd Jangaon in the X [. ' ' clritle atie.r dropping A2 at palat<urtlrr .1nfl all ol thern clror r to Palal urthi, [o thc house ol'A l0 and late,r 1l.<tnr^.her.3 [o Gujrvcl. I hcr eonceal, cl rh,' ptrlsar r.ehiclc. \.eapons ano st()lc - 1o1,1 ornarncnts in thc iroL.rsr.t, ,'r9

¶29

J fleald thc leamed counscl lor the petitroners:rnd the leamed Addirional Pu ili.: I)rosecutor lor the respondent Stato

¶30

'l'he .a xcd counsel lor the petitioners :;ubrnitted that petitiorlers '*/e c ro \ /ay concemed with the alleged of irnce:;. They did not have any :r rrinal antecedents. They werc law ,lltiding citizcns havine permrr lcnt abode and tlxed assets. The wili: ol' petitioner No.1iA7 was^,. u(. tbr delivery and the petitioner No.2/ a.g w1s having a chiid of .ir,.rr , ei rs ol aqe. Even as per the allcgatior-:, mrrde against

¶31

¶32

, I I I i

¶33

thenr in^{the chargesheetthe ir only involvcrner.rtcouldbe undcr Scetion} 201 ol^{IPC lor which the tnaxitrtut.tt punishrr-rent was lor thrce l cars} and fine.^{They were not involved in the offences under SectionsJ94'} 397 and398^{oflPCand prayedto enlargethem on bai['}

¶34

The learned^{Additional Public Prosecutor'on the othcr hand} contended^{that A7 was the brother-in-lawof A I and brotherof A8 l]e} was running^{a gold jewettery shop at Gouraratn villagctle} participated^{in the conspiracy' t{e pickedup the crirnc vehiclc(ptrlsar)} left by A4^{and A5 at Habsigudaanddrove it to Gajwel Fromthcre hc} \r'cnt on^{the biketo Kondapakawith his sister A8 carryinga bag rvith} arms.Bothofthemconcealedthepulsarandbagcontainingtlrcarnls in the bed^{room of A9 and returned to Gouraram'A7 accompanicdAl} to Palkurthy^{in Ertiga and picked up A2' A4 and A5' They came to} Gajwel^{where Al handed over Rs'4'00'000/-to the ofiendersand} collected^{the bag containing stolen gold omamentsand a pistolfrom} A2. Al^{handed over the sameto A7 and on his instructions'A7 and} A8 took^{some pouches of gold omaments' one pistot and hid it in the} house^{of A1. Later A7 and A8 went to Toopran road on A1's bike'and} A8 boarded^{ERTIGAdrivenby Al in which A2' 1\4 and A5 were}

¶35

ir ul( t. . \ ,,

¶36

I I

¶37

I)r-c5(^{tlt \7ainc bacl( to ..\ l's lroLrse and took thc bt! u ith tr.loboxes} ol^slL)ltrlgt' d tc're^It'r. \ent t() Kondapaka o r his IIF [)eluxe motor cvcle and hii trc bag in the sanrc room ivhcre thcy, -iJ tLrc Pulsar and \ cupons ancl Iatcr- returncd to^{(iu ju'el.} The rnoLor c'y'rr^(., and Cell phone \ cfc rr-(, o\ cr.^'c tionl^{.,\ 7}

¶38

l. llc tl; 'tlrcr sLrbrnittcd rhat A8 was the r.r,il'c ol Al and she too l)erririllrltcd^{lthc conspiracl and she accompauie: Al and A7 tbr} pickirrg up tl d .rin)e^r ehicle pLrlsar, hid some part^{( .'} jewellery and a pi5tpl ir thci^l'rrtrsc.hid the crirrrc vehicle pu sar arr,l bar containine \ cll)()u), in tl t' hr,Lrse ol' ,,\ 9 at Korrdapaka along u itl' her brother A7 Shc trar ellec^{* ittr} Al, A2, .A4 and ,A5 upto N irnral r r , facilitatc their crossing of 1:Lrngana border.^'l'he gold orna tents 'r'eighing 523.93 grrs, onc pis^rl. {irur livc iounds, one pistol pouch, lll'Deluxe motor cvcle. and Cel^phonc were recovered at the instance o',,\8. The charge slrccl u,rrs fil :d and prayed to dismiss the bail ap: lication ol the pctrtl0ners

¶39

Perusr. I hc record. The charge sheet rvould rliscl,tse that the pcritiorrr.- \o ,vas thc brothcr-in-law of Al arrd poti. one r No.2 rvas rhc n,rf e o1 .' I^rvho participatcd in thc conspiracl^._o r:ommit the

¶40

¶41

6 l)rr,Ri(. ( rl l' ,) ilSl t,l l I I

¶42

dacoity ol gold ornamcnts lrom jcwellers by using firc amrs and iacilitatcd Al in executing the plan by cngaging liircd assassins Al, A{ and A,5 trom Harya nalltaj astha n with deadly weapons and facilitated their escape after execution ol the armeci dacoity. The charge sheet also would disclose that the stolen gold ornaments, a fire arr-n and ibur live rounds were recovered from the house of Al and A8. As the entire

¶43

investigation was completed, charge sheet was also filed and the ntatter is ripe lor trial, it is considered not fit to release the petitioncrs orr bail

¶44

at this stage, as their free movement rnight be a threat to the witnesses

¶45

In the result, the petition is disrnissed

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

SD/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANLREGISTRAR sEc'#Ploil oFFrcER

¶49

To,

¶50

The lV Additional Metropolitan Magiskate.Cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge Cyberabad at L.B Nagar, Rachakonda.

¶51

The Station House Officer Chaitanyapuri Police Station Rachakonda.

¶52

One CC to SRl. P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶53

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUTj

¶54

Two CD Copies

HIGH COUIIT

DATED:1 1l)412023

,.'.
1. i?
,7;
/; .:
I
i' t/f ?tl?l

¶59

ORDER

¶60

CRLP.No.3i'.81 of 2023

¶61

DlSMISSINC; THE CRLP WITHOUT COSI':S;

¶62

(,5)
_t
{|.-',F
--- \ ,,)
..,L)'

Sumer Choudhary and another v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumer Choudhary and another v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Agarwal Vs Sri Jayesh Rajan

Rajesh Kirar, Vs The State Of Telangana

Nekkanti Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

G.B. Sayanna Yadav, Vs K. Shiva Kumar

Podiami Jaga Vs The State of Telangana

Boda Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana